Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Gold, in the wake of widespread public concern, the government finally set up so-called public consultations on their plan to deal with online harms, which of course included what we knew as Bill C-36 in the last session. Unfortunately, it was all carried out behind closed doors. The government has also decided not to release any of over 300 submissions or its report.

We spoke directly to many of the groups. They had no commercially sensitive information to protect, and most went ahead and made their submissions public regardless.

From open media to the internet society, there was powerful criticism of the legislation and of the consultation process itself. The criteria were too narrow, and the whole process risked being politicized by conducting it during an election campaign. This is an important issue that will impact how Canadians use the internet and just how free our speech will continue to be.

Will this report ever be made public, and will senators have access to it for committee study? If there is any commercially sensitive data, of course it could be redacted.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, Senator Wallin. It’s an important one. I don’t know what the status of the publication of this report is and I will certainly make inquiries.

As members of this chamber would know, the issue of harmful material — including hateful material — is a matter that remains very much a preoccupation of this government. The government has announced that it intends to introduce new legislation in a timely manner that will require social media platforms to take action on illegal content, like child sexual exploitation, and remove it. I think we all look forward to receiving that bill and having the opportunity to study it.

Senator Wallin: We, of course, already have laws on the books regarding hate, and I’m wondering: If the government has continued to refuse to make any of this public, will they at least follow the guidance of the more than 300 submissions that consistently said this legislation is both “unliberal” and “creepily totalitarian”?